Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Getting Rid of Adultery

If we get rid of adultery as part of the redifinition of marriage then of course politicians like John Major, David Mellor, Nicholas Soames, Chris Huhne, Robin Cook, Tim Yeo, Geoffrey Archer would have had no reason to be embarassed.
Another effect is that when a Catholic headteacher runs of with the caretaker, leaving spouse and children, it is going to be difficult to demand their resignation or just to sack them. At the moment Catholic teachers and other employees have a morality clause in their contract ensuring that they are in fact Catholic.
Recently the CES and Bishop's Conference issued Christ at the Centre: Why the Church Provides Catholic Schools, a defense of Catholic schools and also a setting forth of guidelines, whether these will be enforceable if marriage is redefined will be another matter.

12 comments:

Another crucial factor is that once the legislation has been 'trimmed' by equality/discrimination claims and all that's left is a desexualised/non-commitment socio-economic mutually beneficial contract which has nothing to do with marriage...

What happens to baptised non-Catholics whom previously had valid marriages? They won't be validly maried as they neither did as the Church does nor either implicitly or explicitly made the inherent spousal declaration or commitment?

Any defender of the bond will remind us that "I am your husband/wife" if non-clandestine is enough to validate...but when the government eradicates every meaning behind those words a civil ceremony becomes hostile...

Therefore the question arises "Can we formally or proximately materially co-operate with civil marriage"? in that it conspires with the grave disorder of extramarital sex?

Will the Church be forced to remove itself from the civil process and will Catholics married in Church be forbidden from participating in a civil ceremony which intrinsically scandalises the very nature of marriage itself?

Ultimately: Will Catholics no longer be married in the eyes of the State?

Adultery is to be defined as being between a man and a woman (unlike marriage!). Therefore if two men are "married" and one sleeps with a woman that is adultery but not adultery if he sleeps with a another man!

What we could do with now is some good old fashioned British humour sending the whole thing up. Its a pity Spitting Image isn't still going because they would have a field day. Cameron could marry Clegg etc..

On second thoughts that's probably why liberals don't have a sense of humor. Its the one thing that brings everybody back to earth with a bump in a relatively controlled way that doesn't hurt too many feelings. And that's the last thing they want.

I have just been reading John Finnis on marriage at http://web.mit.edu/anscombe/www/finnismarriage.pdf

The position under the proposed legislation is that for those in a heterosexual marriage heterosexual infidelity is adultery and regarded as a serious offence against their marriage. For a homosexual couple in a union homosexual infidelity will not be regarded as an offence against their union. There is a certain logic in this as Finnis's article suggests - at least to me. Heterosexual marriage is fundamentally different in this respect from a homosexual union where there is little reason for fidelity. It is pure fantasy to equate marriage with this latter union and to call it marriage. It is certainly not equal in any real sense.

Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia, et ubi ecclesia vita eterna

My Parish's Website

Comments

Comments may or may not be published. The choice is made on the spur of the moment and is purely arbitary. I do not necessarily agree with all comments published but they are published in the interest of debate. If you object go here.